Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

techtimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#71

Post by dragontamer »

foolfoolz wrote: post #68
dragontamer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once upon a time, one of the largest companies of the USA, Bell Labratories, was declared an illegal monopoly and eradicated. In the correct political environment, entire companies can be dismantled with one executive action. Not our current political environment, but in the 1980s one it could happen. ----------- Oh, also, companies were literally an act of Congress when this country started. We can change the rules…

bell went away, the technology they were the monopoly over didn’t

Leaded Gasoline.

If we don't like a technology we can easily get rid of it in practice.

And by that, I mean that Leaded Gasoline is infeasible to be profitable anymore. So no gas station serves it any more.

And please, it will be easier to regulate all public camera companies than to regulate all independent gas stations. So don't give me any crap about difficulties. Especially when said companies are all individually being purchased by government services like police.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#72

Post by nonethewiser »

kennywinker wrote: post #58
nonethewiser wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The obvious flaw is that someone added this field as a requirement but they never actually audit it and hold officers accountable Flock added the field as a requirement and logs it. It's up to the police/local government to reprimand abuse.

We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

Take that up with the police and local government

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#73

Post by hackyhacky »

7e wrote: post #70
NBJack wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample: - The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) - Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible) - Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outrigh…

Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred…

The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#74

Post by Smoosh »

kennywinker wrote: post #57
cogman10 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks. My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k". These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter w…

I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist. If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.

Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#75

Post by NBJack »

7e wrote: post #70
NBJack wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the context here is the U.S., there are plenty of restrictions they are legally bound by. Here's a small sample: - The fourth amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) - Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (evidence gained without adhering to the fourth amendment is inadmissible) - Wong Sun v. United States, 1963 (conclusions drawn from unlawfully obtained evidence/illegal entry can be challenged or outrigh…

Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred…

Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home.

However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party.

Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search.

It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#76

Post by kennywinker »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #67
kennywinker wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s clear to me that these networked license plate cameras represent a fundamental impingement on freedom. Just one example: how is a journalist supposed to meet with a secret source if their locations at all times are logged? Even if these databases are only ever searched investigating violations of laws, it’s trivial to find ways to twist that against political rivals, protesters and activists, ex girlfriends, jou…

What freedom is being impinged? AFAIK we have no fundamental right to not being recorded in public, presuming it's not indecent. And I'd reiterate what i said elsewhere: I believe people respond to incentives. What we need are more laws governing the law makers and law enforcers. It maybe trivial to shoplift, but the laws (when enforced) make it irrational to.

> What freedom is being impinged?

Freedoms guaranteed by the 1st amendment:

Freedom of the press - by harassing or criminalizing journalists who seek to expose gov or politicians who do wrong.

Freedom of assembly - license plate readers have been used to mass collect plates from people attending political rallies for mainstream candidates.

Freedom of speech and petition - tracking and harassing people for political speech or peaceful protest.

Under the second amendment:

Right to keep and bear arms.

See feds slurping up data on gun show attendees. Doing something that is a basic right should not land you in a gov crime database.

Under the 4th: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Knowing where someone is at all times is an unreasonable search.

And of course the supreme court has ruled that there is no basic right to privacy in the constitution, when they overturned roe v wade, but i strongly disagree with that ruling and believe it was not fair or consistent with the intent of the constitution.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#77

Post by kennywinker »

nonethewiser wrote: post #72
kennywinker wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

Take that up with the police and local government

No. I’d prefer to take that up with the state and federal governments. Some states have passed bans on these invasive cameras. All should.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#78

Post by kennywinker »

Smoosh wrote: post #74
kennywinker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the “fat chance” part is why these networked license plate cameras can not be allowed to continue to exist. If the solution to abuse is constant and careful oversight, that’s not a real solution. Any system will eventually be degraded, disbanded, or captured.

Your last paragraph could pertain to the use of Flock cameras on the population in general.

Hopefully!

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#79

Post by defrost »

nonethewiser wrote: post #46
chucksta wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also designed some amazing validation for that audit software: >Data reviewed by the EFF included searches labelled 'LMAO', 'LOL', 'Hehe', 'Haha', 'idk' and 'blah'. Other entries included 'asdfg' and strings of apparently random keyboard characters. In one case, an officer entered: 'robbery I don't remember the case number leave me alone'. Seems like they really put a lot of thought into preventing abuse >Networ…

What do you mean validation? The reason field is for auditing. Auditing is not validation. And its how the public knows this officer is not meeting quality expectations.

Not anymore.

Flock has updated the reason field to a drop down choice menu.

Now the many officers that typed in LMAO, dunno, and geafdghdstr will now choose a more realistic looking "reason" and the public will no longer know how many police are covering up stalking by entering "robbery".

You seem very keen to make shallow excuses and defend flock and the LEOs here.

Re: A Cop Searched 19,000 Flock Cameras Across 1,558 Cities. His Reason: 'LMAO'

#80

Post by nmeagent »

nonethewiser wrote: post #24
cogman10 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I've actually implemented a system like this for my work. It's completely non-shocking to me that a unchecked and unvalided "reason" field ends up with nothing but garbage in it to get past the software checks. My 3 "words" requirement because managers wanted more than just "caus" ended up with workers simply putting in "a o k". These systems need more validation and teeth than simply letting the officers enter w…

The reason field is not to gate the search feature. It's for accountability. This officer should be reprimanded.

This officer and every other officer who flippantly uses such a system in this way should be relegated to a life of third-shift security work guarding some random warehouse.
Post reply on HN